[Peace-discuss] Democrats into the tank on torture

[C. G. Estabrook]

[From Glenn Greenwald in Salon.  --CGE]

	What happened to the Senate's "60-vote requirement"?
	The Democrats' refusal to filibuster Mukasey's confirmation,
	despite having more than 40 votes in opposition,
	speaks volumes about their sincerity.
	
Nov. 09, 2007 | Every time Congressional Democrats failed this year to 
stop the Bush administration (i.e., every time they "tried"), the excuse 
they gave was that they "need 60 votes in the Senate" in order to get 
anything done. Each time Senate Republicans blocked Democratic 
legislation, the media helpfully explained not that Republicans were 
obstructing via filibuster, but rather that, in the Senate, there is a 
general "60-vote requirement" for everything.

How, then, can this be explained?

     The Senate confirmed Michael B. Mukasey as attorney general 
Thursday night, approving him despite Democratic criticism that he had 
failed to take an unequivocal stance against the torture of terrorism 
detainees.

     The 53-to-40 vote made Mr. Mukasey, a former federal judge, the 
third person to head the Justice Department during the tenure of 
President Bush . . . Thirty-nine Democrats and one independent [Bernie 
Sanders] opposed him.

Beyond that, four Senate Democrats running for President missed the 
vote, and all four had announced they oppose Mukasey's confirmation. 
Thus, at least 44 Senators claimed to oppose Mukasey's confirmation -- 
more than enough to prevent it via filibuster. So why didn't they 
filibuster, the way Senate Republicans have on virtually every measure 
this year which they wanted to defeat?

Numerous Senate Democrats delivered dramatic speeches from the floor as 
to why Mukasey's confirmation would be so devastating to the country. 
The Washington Post said the "vote came after more than four hours of 
impassioned floor debate."

"Torture should not be what America stands for . . . I do not vote to 
allow torture," said Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy. Russ 
Feingold said: "we need an attorney general who will tell the president 
that he cannot ignore the laws passed by Congress. And on that 
fundamental qualification for this office Judge Mukasey falls short." 
Feingold added: "If Judge Mukasey won't say the simple truth -- that 
this barbaric practice is torture -- how can we count on him to stand up 
to the White House on other issues?"

Wow -- it sounds as though there was really a lot at stake in this vote. 
So why would 44 Democratic Senators make a flamboyant showing of 
opposing confirmation without actually doing what they could to prevent 
it? Is it that a filibuster was not possible because a large number of 
these Democratic Senators were willing to symbolically oppose 
confirmation so they could say they did -- by casting meaningless votes 
in opposition knowing that confirmation was guaranteed -- but were 
unwilling to demonstrate the sincerity of their claimed beliefs by 
acting on them?

The Post said the vote "reflected an effort by Democrats to register 
their displeasure with Bush administration policies on torture and the 
boundaries of presidential power." Apparently, they wanted to 
oh-so-meaningfully "register their displeasure" but not actually stop 
confirmation.

[The most amazing quote was from chief Mukasey supporter Chuck Schumer, 
who, before voting for him, said that Mukasey is "wrong on torture -- 
dead wrong." Marvel at that phrase: "wrong on torture." Six years ago, 
there wasn't even any such thing as being "wrong on torture," because 
"torture" wasn't something we debated. It would have been incoherent to 
have heard: "Well, he's dead wrong on torture, but . . . "

Now, "torture" is not only something we openly debate, but it's 
something we do. And the fact that someone is on the wrong side of the 
"torture debate" doesn't prevent them from becoming the Attorney General 
of the United States. It's just one issue, like any other issue -- the 
capital gains tax, employer mandates for health care, the water bill -- 
and just because someone is "dead wrong" on one little issue (torture) 
hardly disqualifies them from High Beltway Office.]

Over and over again this year, Republican filibusters were depicted 
(both by Senate Democrats and the media) as nothing more the routine 
need to obtain the "60 votes required" for passage of any measure in the 
Senate. That "requirement" was said to apply to everything, including 
immigration ("The Senate voted 52-44 for the DREAM Act, but 60 votes 
were required to end debate"); Iraq withdrawal timetables ("Support is 
expected to top 50 votes but fall short of the 60 required"); troop 
leave requirements ("Webb's Iraq bill inches closer to 60 . . . . 
Winning at least three of those Republicans over could give the 
Democrats the 60 votes they need"); and warrantless surveillance 
("Democratic-sponsored bill failed to reach the 60-vote majority").

As Steve Benen recently documented (emphasis in original):

     The Republican minority has created a de facto 60-vote minimum to 
do anything of substance in the Senate. They'll allow routine up-or-down 
votes on renaming post offices, or those rare bills that enjoy 
near-unanimous support, but otherwise, it's filibuster time on the 
Senate floor. And while the number of filibusters has been going up 
pretty consistently for 20 years, these Republicans appear to be in a 
league of their own.

Benen quoted John McCain as explaining: "You can't say that all we're 
going to do around here in the United States Senate is have us govern by 
51 votes -- otherwise we might as well be unicameral, because then we 
would have the Senate and the House exactly the same."

But it isn't true that there is a "60-vote requirement," because only 
Republicans are willing to impose it. Democrats won't, even on what they 
claim are the gravest of matters, such as confirming someone as Attorney 
General who is "dead wrong on torture" and who won't even "tell the 
president that he cannot ignore the laws passed by Congress."

The so-called "60-vote requirement" applies only when it is time to do 
something to limit the Bush administration. It is merely the excuse 
Senate Democrats use to explain away their chronic failure/unwillingness 
to limit the President, and it is what the media uses to depict the GOP 
filibuster as something normal and benign. There obviously is no 
"60-vote requirement" when it comes to having the Senate comply with the 
President's demands, as the 53-vote confirmation of Michael Mukasey 
amply demonstrates. But as Mukasey is sworn in as the highest law 
enforcement officer in America, the Democrats want you to know that they 
most certainly did stand firm and "register their displeasure."

-- Glenn Greenwald

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html